Originally posted by no1marauderThe point about intervention is apposite, especially since the Taliban owes its ascendancy to foreign intervention. Unfortunately 50% of the Afghan voting populace is automatically disqualified from choosing by gender. Not only that but democracy itself is frowned upon by the Taliban as a Western invention. So the Taliban once established, it becomes a moot point what the people of Afghanistan may want.
Howard, you really need to learn how to read. My statement remains correct, no matter how hysterically you go off on a tangent.
It's up to the people of Afghanistan to decide whether they like a government like the Taliban or not. You and other Western busybodies have done enough harm to the Third World. How much more blood are you willing to spill to get the "savages" to agree to have a government that you prefer?
Originally posted by howardgeeActually, I'm too much of a realist and student of history to agree that outsiders will ever be able to conform Afghanistan to their desires. The Brits tried and failed, the Soviets tried and failed and now it's the US' turn to try and fail. Absent mass murder of the Pashtun population (you game for that, Howie?), the Taliban and Islamic Fundamentalists of various stripes are going to be predominant in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. The longer the West meddles there, the more likely that will continue as it allows the Taliban and groups like it to use nationalism as well as religion to consolidate and increase their appeal.
Yes, in fact what should happen is that the Taliban should be hounded out of existence wherever they exist. The whole world should unite against the despicable group.
Of course No1Defrauder is too much of a bleeding heart liberal/politically correct apologist to agree to this.
Originally posted by no1marauderI tend to agree with that.
The longer the West meddles there, the more likely that will continue as it allows the Taliban and groups like it to use nationalism as well as religion to consolidate and increase their appeal.
But the Taliban is also very active and influential in Pakistan, aided and abetted by certain elements in the Pakistani military. Should Pakistan request assistance in dealing with the Pakistani Taliban, wouldn't you expect its allies to oblige?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYour naivete is, as usual, amusing.
The point about intervention is apposite, especially since the Taliban owes its ascendancy to foreign intervention. Unfortunately 50% of the Afghan voting populace is automatically disqualified from choosing by gender. Not only that but democracy itself is frowned upon by the Taliban as a Western invention. So the Taliban once established, it becomes a moot point what the people of Afghanistan may want.
The people have the ultimate power to install who they please to govern them.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is turning the situation on its head.
I tend to agree with that.
But the Taliban is also very active and influential in Pakistan, aided and abetted by certain elements in the Pakistani military. Should Pakistan request assistance in dealing with the Pakistani Taliban, wouldn't you expect its allies to oblige?
The Pakistani government has should a willingness to negotiate with and recognize spheres of influence inside Pakistan for the Taliban and other similar groups. It is most reluctant to use force and risk civil war. However, the US government in particular, is trying to pressure Pakistan to move aggressively with massive force against the Taliban and others in Pakistan.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedA women's revolution in Afghanistan doesn't seem all that plausible to me.
History refuting the observation that change is inevitable if people want it enough? Well, off the top of my head, Wat Tyler and co. didn't get very far. But then the way you've framed your question, you could just say they didn't try hard enough.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDon't be an imbecile. Wat Tyler didn't have mass popular support. But the changes he wanted eventually happened, didn't they?
A women's revolution in Afghanistan doesn't seem all that plausible to me.
History refuting the observation that change is inevitable if people want it enough? Well, off the top of my head, Wat Tyler and co. didn't get very far. But then the way you've framed your question, you could just say they didn't try hard enough.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBy having a government imposed on Afghanistan by Western force of arms?
It seems the best method devised so far. But let me ask differently: How could Afghan women achieve political equality with men in a patriarchal tribal system?
How will women in Western countries gain "political equality"?
